Freedom Line Blog

More than ten percent — or 75,343 — of the jobs the Obama Administration claims have been “created or saved” by the $787 billion Stimulus package are “doubtful or imaginary.”

That’s the conclusion of a comprehensive analysis performed by David Freddoso and Mark Hemingway of The Washington Examiner, who compiled and analyzed media reports on the Stimulus over the course of the last two weeks. 

According to Freddoso and Hemingway:

The Obama administration has claimed that the $787 billion economic stimulus package ‘saved or created’ some 650,000 jobs. But almost as soon as the White House trotted out this figure, news organizations found huge exaggerations in the reported data. Many of the jobs reportedly created do not exist or cannot be accounted for.

The Examiner has created a handy interactive map highlighting the exaggerated job claims, broken down by state and locality.  The map is accompanied by a chart fully documenting the jobs “not really created or saved” by the Stimulus.   Check both out here.

Freddoso and Hemingway write that the project “remains a work in progress because relatively few newspapers have scrutinized stimulus spending so far.”  They plan to update the map and chart as new revelations are reported on by the media.

Okay, so maybe the cost-control bureaucrats under ObamaCare wouldn’t directly kill people forced into a national health plan. However, a sobering article in today’s Wall Street Journal shows how a key element of every health reform bill now in Congress could cause death(s) by a thousand denials.

As envisioned by the Senate Finance Committee, the commission—all 15 members appointed by the President—would have to meet certain budget targets each year. Starting in 2015, Medicare could not grow more rapidly on a per capita basis than by a measure of inflation. After 2019, it could only grow at the same rate as GDP, plus one percentage point.

The theory is to let technocrats set Medicare payments free from political pressure, as with the military base closing commissions. But that process presented recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Here, the commission’s decisions would go into effect automatically if Congress couldn’t agree within six months on different cuts that met the same target. The board’s decisions would not be subject to ordinary notice-and-comment rule-making, or even judicial review.”

So, absent a congressional override, there is no appeal for a denial of care made in the name of cost-benefit analysis. Of course, the “costs” and “benefits” will be considered as collective values interpreted by government administrators – not individual patients and taxpayers.

The State of Washington already has a similarly functioning “independent commission” that is actively denying care like the types mentioned above. While the consequences could be deadly, the creation of prolonged pain in the interim borders on unconscionable. Such decisions will become a reality when the public “option” becomes a public “mandate” forcing all but the wealthiest to suffer under a rationed health care system. Let’s hope there is enough push-back from Congress and the country to guarantee similar types of “pain panels” don’t take up residence in the nation’s capitol.

Below is one of the latest cartoons from Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website.

The government can’t manage to control the laws of economics like it used to.

No surprise here, but according to a new study released by the non-partisan Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies, the House health care bill will increase health care costs by $289 billion in the next ten years.

As much as the White House talked about “bending the health care cost curve” downward, the House health care bill, H.R.3962, does the exact opposite.

For some reason the Administration can’t understand that more government spending on health care without commensurate gains in supply leads to health care inflation, driving up costs for all consumers.

Other highlights from the report:

By calendar year 2019, the mandates, coupled with the Medicaid expansion, would reduce the number of uninsured from 57 million, as projected under current law, to an estimated 23 million under H.R. 3962.

The estimated effects of H.R. 3962 on overall national health expenditures (NHE) are shown in table 5. In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 NHE would increase by $289 billion, or 0.8 percent, over the updated baseline projection that was released on June 29, 2009… The NHE share of GDP is projected to be 21.1 percent in 2019, compared to 20.8 percent under current law.

Public spending would increase under H.R. 3962 as a result of the expansion of the Medicaid program and other Medicaid changes, less the net Medicare savings under the bill. Private expenditures would be higher as well…

One of the more frustrating aspects of debunking worldwide climate change hysteria is the false notion that a consensus exists that global warming is man-made.

On that front, there’s good news to report for those of us who prefer sobriety to fashionability.  According to a new Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll, a 47% to 37% plurality believes that climate change results more from long-term planetary causes than human activity.  Considering the fact that temperatures have declined since eleven years ago, and that global cooling was the trendy hysteria just thirty years ago, it’s refreshing to know that Americans are on to the scam.

And dangerously for Barack Obama, Americans by 50% to 20% believe that he still considers global warming man-made.  Thus, like ObamaCare, this means that more Americans view his agenda as one opposing theirs, creating a precarious phenomenon for him.  As he prepares to travel to Copenhagen to once again bow before the false international gods of global warming at the expense of America’s economy and taxpayers, it’s something of which his bumbling staff had better become aware.

Washington Post – Health Bill Would Reduce Senior Care
National Review Online – Great Headlines for ObamaCare
Reuters – Senate Won’t Rush Health Bill
Real Clear Politics – Government Health Care Will Leave Us Broke

New York Times – Unemployment is Off the Chart
Clive Crook – American Dream Needs Repair
The Hill – Conservatives Split over Judicial Filibuster
Politico – Charlie Crist Loses His Mojo

Federal Debt: $11.994 trillion

In the aftermath of the Obama Justice Department’s (and, let’s be clear, the President’s) decision to bring a group of terrorist figures — including professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — to trial in American courtrooms, liberals in Congress are bending over backwards to tout the administration’s moral superiority.

What’s notable about their talking points is how thin the gruel they’re serving up is.  Consider this gem from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan):

The argument by some that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be treated as a warrior and not as a common criminal misses the point. He wants us to treat him as a warrior. But he should, and will, be treated as the common terrorist criminal that he is.

As Charles Krauthammer noted on last night’s “Special Report,” the phrase “terrorist criminal” is, in and of itself, an oxymoron. But there’s also a bit of a stolen base in Levin’s argument.  Because KSM wants to be treated as a warrior, he shouldn’t be? How about a justice system that operates according to the facts rather than the feelings of those involved? Sure, KSM might want the glories of martyrdom — give it to him.  For every died in the wool jihadi who bids him well as he’s ferried across the River Styx to the land of subjugated virgins, they’ll be another potential Al-Qaeda recruit who learns that terrorism is a short road that ends in the embrace of an American noose.

Also weighing in was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont):

By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system — a system respected around the world.

That Leahy seems to think that whether or not America has any faith in the judicial process hinges on whether or not we empty out the population of Guantanamo Bay into New York City courtrooms doesn’t speak well of his standing as judiciary chairman.  But are the military tribunals that these men would have otherwise faced not part of our judicial system? Or does he not remember being on the losing end of the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006?

Politics is supposed to stop at the water’s edge. Unfortunately, these days that water is in the Potomac River.

Uninhibited by the mounting debt being incurred through present and future spending, the White House is pressuring Congress to raise the legal cap on the country’s debt limit.  Rebecca Christie of Bloomberg reports:

The Obama administration is confident Congress will raise the country’s debt limit by year end to avert a showdown similar to the one that shuttered parts of the government in 1995, administration officials said.

The White House wants an increase of at least $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, according to a person familiar with the deliberations between lawmakers and the administration. Record budget deficits are pushing the national debt closer to the $12.1 trillion statutory limit.”

One would think a debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion would be a high enough threshold that – if reached – would prompt lawmakers to question the necessity (and sanity) of going over it.  One would be wrong.  What’s more, the Obama Administration is signaling that it doesn’t really care how Congress gets around to extending the nation’s credit line, as long as it does so before anyone has to choose between less spending or less work for federal employees.

The administration officials said the White House is open to any legislative vehicle that will raise the debt limit, by any amount.”

While touring Asia, President Barack Obama continued his recent backhanding of the international community. Last week it was failing to attend the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall falling. Today, it’s telling Asian markets to perish the thought of relying on future American spending.

President Barack Obama has come halfway around the world to personally deliver the message to East Asia that the global economy can no longer count on the U.S. consumer to keep it afloat.

In what White House aides call a “major address” here on Friday, and in planned comments in Singapore and China next week, Mr. Obama will press his push to “rebalance” the world’s economy, urging China to adjust its economic policy to spur domestic consumption as the U.S. encourages less consumption, more savings and more exports.”

But perhaps the news isn’t all bad for Asian exporters.  With the increasing purchasing power of the federal government under Obama’s rapacious domestic agenda, Asian businesses will soon be able to find a new buyer for their goods: the all-encompassing federal bureaucracy!

Well, not yet.  But this week Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf issued a sobering report on the state of the nation’s finances.

The largest problem by far?  Entitlements … those “popular” little nuggets of government largesse that everyone enjoys receiving but no one (maybe some liberals) enjoys paying for out of their paycheck.  For example, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to grow by 80% over the next 25 years, while Social Security will only grow 20%.

As Elmendorf notes, the nation simply can’t continue to run up the national debt, currently at almost $12 trillion.  He alludes to possible crises down the road: a drastic drop in the dollar, an increase in interest rates and massive tax hikes.

His conclusion:

[F]iscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved by minor tinkering. The country faces a fundamental disconnect between the services the people expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the tax revenues that people are willing to send to the government to finance those services. That fundamental disconnect will have to be addressed in some way if the budget is to be placed on a sustainable course.

From government-run health care to a cap-and-trade energy tax, from bans on new fast food restaurants to taxing soft drinks, elected officials at the federal and state levels are working to rapidly expand the Nanny State.  CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the issue in this week’s Freedom Minute.

Watch the video below.

This week’s edition of the Liberty Update, CFIF’s weekly e-newsletter, is out.  For those readers who don’t receive it in their e-mail inboxes or if you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, below is a summary of its contents:

Lee:  ObamaCare and the Auto Insurance Analogy
Batkins:  Health Care Turncoats
CFIF Staff:  Keep on Lying, Charlie. That’s What Florida Really Wants in its Next Senator
Senik:  The Politician America Needs: Margaret Thatcher

Freedom Minute Video:  Smothered by the Nanny State
Podcast:  Health Care Reform – Fact vs. Fiction – Interview with Sally Pipes
Jester’s Courtroom:  Lawsuit Suggests Crime Does Pay

Editorial Cartoons:  Latest Cartoons of Michael Ramirez
Quiz:  Question of the Week
Notable Quotes:  Quotes of the Week

If you are not already signed up to receive CFIF’s Liberty Update, sign up here.

This one is from James Capretta over at The New Atlantis, a technology and science journal, is a must read.

Capretta highlights why the federal government will never be able to truly “bend the cost curve” on health care.

Here is the link and a few highlights:

Obamacare is predicated on the assumption that the federal government has the knowledge, capacity, and will to drive greater efficiency in American health care. Inadvertently, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has become an articulate spokesman for why that assumption is dead wrong.

Emanuel blames the limits of politics. “Let’s be honest,” Emanuel apparently stated in a recent interview. “The goal isn’t to see whether I can pass this through the executive board of the Brookings Institution. I’m passing it through the United State Congress with people who represent constituents.” That’s exactly right of course. But it’s also an indictment of the entire Obamacare enterprise. The health-care bills under consideration would hand over to the federal government nearly all power for organizing American health care. And yet there is not a shred of evidence that Congress or the administration can handle these tasks well.

The only way to slow the pace of rising costs without sacrificing quality is by building a functioning marketplace, with cost-conscious consumers driving the allocation of resources. The government must play an important oversight role in such a marketplace. But if we rely on politicians, or even commissions that answer to them, for cost control, what we will get is lower quality, not more efficiency.

HT: Greg Mankiw

WSJ – Sneak Peak at Palin’s “Going Rogue”
Political Wire – Obama to Focus on Deficit Reduction
Peggy Noonan – Just the Facts, Mr. President
New York Review of Books – Who Are the Blue Dogs?
National Review Online – Spending the Holidays with Harry Reid

The Hill – White House Counsel to Resign
Politico – 9/11 Suspects to be Tried in NY
PC World – Experts Worry about Net Neutrality Rules

Federal Debt: $11.922 trillion

Apparently, former president George W. Bush “went against (his) free-market instincts” when he approved the Wall Street bailout towards the end of his administration.  Better late than never I suppose.

After issuing his mea culpa, “W” had some words of wisdom for his successor:

And without mentioning President Obama by name the former President did have some rather pointed comments for the current Administration claiming that generally “history shows that the greater threat to prosperity is not too little government involvement, but too much.”

Bush, who as President also signed off on massive aid to the auto industry, warned against a government takeover of the economy fearing it would eliminate free-market enterprise.  “As the world recovers, we are going to face the temptation to replace the risk and reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control.”

Do as I say…

In one of the best critiques of action without regard to consequences, celebrated chaos theoretician Ian Malcolm said about overzealous experts that they were “so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

From bio-ethics to evidence-based public policy, it is astounding that the 220 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and at least a score of senators who support the Obama Administration’s health care “reform” plan cannot answer the following question:

It’s one of the most basic, kitchen-table questions of the entire reform debate: Would the sweeping $900 billion overhaul actually lower spiraling insurance premiums for everyone?

No one really knows.”

And it’s not just that people haven’t read the bill, or studies analyzing its impact on the cost of health care. It’s that the data doesn’t exist.

At a recent Senate health committee hearing, two health care rivals – Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economic adviser to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, and Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor whose work is cited often by the White House – agreed comprehensive, objective evidence wasn’t available for small and large businesses.

“It’s insane,” Holtz-Eakin said.

Agreed. Thankfully, at least one Democratic Senator thinks information – not just assurances – is needed before committing American taxpayers to a trillion dollar decision.

The lack of data prompted Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) to request a broad analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on premiums, which he said was “a basic, bottom-line question that we have to have answered before we can decide if this is an intelligent thing to do.”

Now we see why Senator Bayh didn’t make the cut to be Vice President. He likes to consult factually-based, non-partisan research before voting in favor of the largest expansion of federal social services in 40 years.

Characteristically, top Obama advisors have a different view – one that chooses the devil we don’t know instead of the devil we do.

“I think you could always use more data,” (White House Health Czar Nancy-Ann) DeParle said, but added that “we have plenty of data on where things are and where things are headed without reform.”

Did you catch the barely concealed contempt for “business as usual” and the stifled urge to blame the previous administration?

All this would be comical if there weren’t a $787 billion stimulus package in circulation, the consequences of which still defy an ability to be measured or predicted. To their credit, some Democratic caucus members are joining Senator Bayh’s (belated) rush to judge the health care “reform” bill on its merits.

Lawmakers say they are hungry for data that assures them they are not voting for a bill that does the opposite what they have intended.

“I want to see an objective, third-party analysis from people who don’t have a conflict of interest,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “I like evidence.”

Good. So do the people being asked to finance health care “reform” unto the nth generation.

You can read the entire article from Politico here.

Spitzer to Lecture at Harvard Ethics Center

I’m not sure what’s more troubling, that Spitzer would agree to lecture on ethics, or that the Harvard Ethics Center would invite him to do so.

More from the Boston Globe:

Spitzer, a Harvard Law School alumnus, left office in March 2008 after it become public that he frequented an upscale prostitution service.

The madam who says she supplied Spitzer with high priced escorts for five years wrote a letter to the ethics center objecting to Spitzer’s speech because as New York attorney general he broke the same laws he enforced.

“I am greatly intrigued as to what Mr. Spitzer could contribute to an ethical discussion when as Chief Executive Law Enforcement Officer of NY he broke numerous laws for which he has yet to be punished,” the madam, Kristin Davis, wrote in the letter, which is posted on her website. “As Attorney General he went around arresting and making examples out of the same escort agencies he was frequenting.”

Bertha Lewis, head of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), has been busy in recent months trying to defend her organization in the face of an avalanche of controversy.  Lewis is sticking to her argument that it was merely a few bad apples employed by ACORN who were caught on undercover videotape giving advice on how to lie to the IRS on income from a fictional underage brothel.  Such behavior isn’t typical within the organization, she claims.

Or is it?  Ronald Kessler, Chief Washington Correspondent at Newsmax.com, writes today:

More undercover videos of ACORN workers apparently advising Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe on how to evade federal taxes on income from a fictitious brothel will be released to the media in coming weeks, Giles tells Newsmax. 

In the meantime, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now has filed suit in Maryland against Giles and O’Keefe, claiming civil damages…

Attorneys for the Liberty Legal Institute are defending Giles, the daughter of a conservative pastor in Miami, pro bono. 

In related news, Politico is reporting that ACORN “filed a lawsuit against the federal government Thursday morning, seeking to overturn a law stopping the flow of federal funds” to the organization.  ACORN argues that measures passed by the House and the Senate to stop the organization from receiving certain taxpayer dollars are… unconstitutional.

Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman might end up winning the race for the upstate New York House seat that he supposedly lost last week.  Bill Owens, the Democrat, was sworn in last Saturday.

Apparently, Hoffman conceded based on inaccurate reports from his base in Oswego County and early returns.  As it turns out, Owens’ lead is down to 3,026 votes (from over 5,000 on Election Night), with still more than 10,200 absentee ballots at large.  The chances are slim, but if Speaker Pelosi hadn’t planned a health care vote for last Saturday night, this race might still be up in the air.

From the news report:

Now Hoffman, who campaigned against the health care reform bill, is carefully watching as the 23rd District race tightens and he is left to wonder if he conceded too soon.

“I don’t know if we would have conceded on election night,” Rob Ryan, Hoffman’s campaign spokesman, said Wednesday while discussing the latest results of the recanvassing. “I’m someone who doesn’t like to look back. But would we have taken longer to make a decision on election night? Probably, if we knew it was only 3,000 votes making the difference.”

Ryan, while acknowledging that Hoffman’s chances of pulling off a come-from-behind victory are still remote, said the campaign is looking at its legal options.

Karl Rove – A Referendum on This White House
The Hill – Companies Lobby FCC on Net Neutrality
RedState – Senator Doubts Prospects for ObamaCare
George Will – Debt is Destroying the Dollar
National Review Online – Deal or No Deal, Big Pharma Loses
Washington Post – Incumbents Beware!
WSJ – Incumbents Endangered for 2010

Federal Debt: $11.933 trillion